2022 (8) TMI 1076 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification of mistake u/s 154 - disallowing depreciation and RTO tax insurance expenses and 40(a)(ia) disallowance on interest expense paid to NBFCs without making deduction as required u/s. 194A - HELD THAT - We find that the ld. CIT(A) directed the assessing officer to verify whether the payee has already offered the amount as income in the Return of income. However concluded that the addition made by the A.O. is deleted, which is self-contrary to the findings made by the ld. CIT(A). Therefore it is appropriate to remit the case back to the file of the AO for limited purpose of verification, whether the payee has already offered the amount as income in the Return of Income and make appropriate disallowance pursuant to the verification thereon. Appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rectification order under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax at source.
3. Appeal against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
4. Retrospective effect of proviso inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 in section 40(a)(ia).
5. Direction to verify if payee has offered the amount as income.
6. Remand of the case back to the Assessing Officer for verification.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, related to the Assessment Year 2009-10. The case involved the reopening of assessment under section 147, non-compliance by the assessee to notices, and subsequent disallowances made by the Assessing Officer.

2. The primary issue revolved around the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax at source on certain payments made by the assessee. The Assessing Officer had made disallowances related to container charges, depreciation, RTO tax, insurance expenses, and interest expenses paid to NBFCs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the assessee's appeal, citing retrospective effect of a proviso inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 in section 40(a)(ia).

3. The Revenue challenged the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the grounds that the disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) should not have been deleted. The argument was based on the directive given to the Assessing Officer to take action under section 201(1A) for interest payment, and the need to verify if the payee had already offered the amount as income.

4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) cannot be sustained if the recipient had already declared the payment as income. However, discrepancies were noted in the findings, leading to a remand of the case back to the Assessing Officer for verification purposes.

5. The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for verification regarding whether the payee had indeed offered the amount as income. The case was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for further examination and appropriate action based on the verification outcome.

This detailed analysis encapsulates the key issues, arguments, and outcomes of the legal judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT AHMEDABAD.